When a transfer on-chain is not recorded off-chain: what to do first
When an on-chain transfer has no matching entry in the off-chain register, the holder's position stays unsettled until the two records align. See What we do not do, and why the line for what this page does not cover. Evidence gathering starts now: the transaction hash, custodian logs, and the register's update history. Delay narrows the options for correction.
The basis
Two EU instruments frame how transfers of crypto-assets are meant to be recorded. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) sets record-keeping duties for crypto-asset service providers tied to their authorisation. Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) requires transfers of crypto-assets carried out through a crypto-asset service provider to carry originator and beneficiary information alongside the transfer itself. Neither instrument gives a private party a direct claim to force a correction of an off-chain register. Both set duties owed by the operator, not a remedy owed to the counterparty.
What each record shows
| Record | What it confirms | What it does not confirm |
|---|---|---|
| On-chain ledger | That a transaction was broadcast and included in a block, with a hash and a timestamp | Who controls the receiving address in real-world terms |
| Off-chain register | The entry the operator currently holds for a named account | Whether that entry has caught up with the latest on-chain activity |
What changes in practice
If the register lags behind the chain, the current holder's claim rests on the on-chain data alone until the operator updates its own files. Time limits attached to disputing an entry start running from the date the gap becomes visible, not from the date it is corrected. The same kind of gap can affect other token functions — see When a token gives voting rights: what to do for what happens when the missing record carries a vote rather than a transfer.
What to do first
- Export the on-chain record immediately. Counsel or the client's technical contact preserves the hash, the block height, and the timestamp before a re-organisation or a bridge event affects visibility.
- Request the off-chain entry in writing. Counsel names the transaction hash and asks the operator to state the entry as held on a fixed date.
- Log every operator response. Silence and verbal assurances are the two most common ways this evidence disappears before a dispute starts.
- Check for an intermediary. If a crypto-asset service provider held the asset at any point, its own duties under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) apply to that leg of the transfer.
- Use the operator's own correction procedure first. Most registers have one, and a refusal or a silence on that route is itself useful evidence.
Who decides
The register's operator corrects its own record in the first instance. If it refuses, or stays silent beyond its stated response window, the matter typically moves to the forum named in the token's terms or in the operator's own service agreement. A court becomes the decision-maker only once that internal route has been used and has failed, or has been refused outright. The evidence a court weighs is the same file built in the steps above: the chain data, the written request, and the operator's response or its absence.
Three variations
If the operator is a licensed crypto-asset service provider, its correction duties sit within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), and a request should go directly to its compliance function with the transaction hash attached.
If no licensed provider sits in the chain, the register may be a private ledger maintained under contract only, and the request goes to whoever operates that contract rather than to a regulator.
If the transfer crossed into or out of a self-hosted wallet, the on-chain record becomes the primary evidence on its own, because no operator may hold a matching off-chain entry at all.
What this page does not settle
This page does not establish who currently holds the asset. That question is answered, where the facts allow it, through Asset report united kingdom, which sets out what a United Kingdom search can and cannot confirm.
It does not trace a counterparty's other holdings either. Where the dispute turns on a person rather than an object, Debtor in United Kingdom: what can be established describes the same limits from that angle.
Related situations
A related question arises when the dispute concerns the mint itself rather than a later transfer: When the creator disputes the mint: what to do sets out that starting point.
Verified
Checked against Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) as published on EUR-Lex. Last checked: 10 March 2025.
FAQ
What is the first step when a transfer on-chain is not recorded off-chain?
Export and preserve the on-chain record before anything else. The hash, block height, and timestamp are the evidence that does not wait for the register to catch up.
Which deadline is already running?
Any time limit attached to disputing the register's entry runs from the date the gap becomes visible, not from the date the operator corrects it. Treat the discovery date as the starting point.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
The operator decides first, on its own correction procedure. A court or the forum named in the token's terms decides only after that route is used and fails, weighing the same chain data and written correspondence.